Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />The court noted that the city council was entitled to deference in its <br />construction of the ordinances it enacted. It agreed with the city council's <br />interpretation of the ordinance. It found that when it construed the city's <br />ordinances as a whole, the city council was required to consider the city <br />staff's reasons for denying the license, but could also hear other evidence <br />regarding compliance with the zoning and use requirements applicable to <br />the license being sought. The court also emphasized that the city coun- <br />cil's interpretation of the ordinance was logical, while Enclave's was not: <br />The city council had logically found that the city staff's omission should <br />not nullify the plain language of its ordinance prohibiting sexually-ori- <br />ented businesses within 1,000 feet of an occupied single-family residence. <br />In contrast, Enclave's interpretation would lead to an "absurd conclu- <br />sion" -that the city council must order issuance of a license for a sexu- <br />ally-oriented business that did not qualify for it under the ordinances. <br /> <br />See also: State v. Nieto, 993 Pold 493 (Colo. 2000). <br /> <br /> <br />. 12 <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest <br /> <br />60 <br /> <br />.---... <br /> <br />\ <br />,. <br />